At the same time, the majority does not have unlimited power. The government developed by the framers is not a strict democracy but a republican form which seeks to protect the minority from a tyranny of the majority. The Bill of Rights is in fact a statement of principles that are not to be curtailed even if the majority wants to do so (McKenna 43-45). The Constitution not only provides the form of government but also codifies certain principles and makes provision for enforcement and adjudication of differences over those principles. These principles as a consequence remain in force today in spite of shifts in the public consensus over time. It is always possible to amend the Constitution and to change those principles, but the process for doing so is deliberately difficult in order to avoid making the country, and any minority within the country, hostage to the vagaries of public opinion (McKenna 40-41). The Founders also instituted super majorities for voting on certain issues as a way of assuring that these issues would be decided in favor of the vast majority of Americans and not on the basis of a small group that could achieve a plurality. Changing the Constitution is one such issue--the Framers meant for it to be difficult and so called for a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate and a 3/4 agreement by the states. Amendments have been made when the country really believed it was necessary for there to be a change, and such changes required a higher majority vote than an election would because an Amendment to the Constitution will last for a long time, while the results of any election can be negated with the next election. Another group holds that Beard is ignoring the fact that there were very few propertyless people in America at the time, with the exception of the slaves. The ratification of the Constitution was complicated by the differences between the Federalists and their opponents. There was an attempt to accommodate both sides with th |
